Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

A new H.I.V. test for home use that gives quick results was approved on Tuesday by the Food and Drug Administration, giving Americans the first chance in the epidemic’s 30 years to learn in the privacy of their own homes whether they are infected.

The test, made by OraSure and called OraQuick, uses a cheek swab and gives results in 20 to 40 minutes, so it is as easy to use as a home pregnancy kit.

Previous over-the-counter H.I.V. test kits allowed users to swab their own cheeks or prick their own fingers, but the sample had to be mailed to a lab.

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the longtime AIDS researcher who heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, called the OraQuick test a “positive step forward.”

Each year about 50,000 Americans become infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, and about a fifth of the 1.2 million Americans who are now infected do not know it, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Getting an infected person onto antiretroviral drugs early lowers by as much as 96 percent the chances that he or she will pass the virus on to someone else, studies have shown, so treatment has become a form of prevention that could shrink the epidemic.

“If this enhances the number of people you can get into care, the advantages outweigh any objections,” Dr. Fauci said in an interview.

Testing for AIDS has been more fraught with controversy than testing for any other disease because of the unique history of the epidemic. It emerged in the 1980s wrapped in a shroud of stigma because it was mysterious, was transmitted through sex, drug injection and blood transfusions, was inevitably fatal, and often afflicted gay men and drug abusers. —

Being tested for AIDS was seen as tantamount to a public disclosure that one was homosexual or a drug addict, so maintaining privacy became paramount and some gay rights groups warned men to avoid testing.

Tests for flu and cholesterol long ago became routine parts of medical care. Pregnancy kits allowed testing in one’s own bathroom. And tests even for heavily stigmatized sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis were once routine in applying for a marriage license. But testing anyone for AIDS in most states required a separate counseling session and often a signed consent form — all of which added to the air of dread.

Even when lifesaving antiretroviral drugs emerged in the 1990s, states were slow to rewrite laws governing testing, and medical associations took years before suggesting that AIDS tests become part of routine care. The F.D.A. has been considering versions of the home test since 2005.

The new kit will allow anyone who suspects he or she is infected to test in privacy.

Some objections have been raised. When used by average consumers, rather than by health care professionals, the test is accurate 99.98 percent of the time for people who are not infected, but only 92 percent of the time for people who are H.I.V.-positive.

That means about one infected person in 12 would get a false negative, but only about 1 in 5,000 uninfected people would get a false positive.

Any positive test needs confirmation in a doctor’s office, the F.D.A. said. It approved the test not to replace medical testing but because many Americans never get tested at all. The hope is that the home test will encourage infected people to seek medical care earlier, helping save lives and slow the spread of the epidemic.

The home kit “provides another option for individuals to get tested,” said Dr. Karen Midthun, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the F.D.A.

In the past, some advocates have opposed home testing on various grounds: that finding out one is infected is so stressful that it should be done only in the presence of a counselor, that the uncertainty around the test would be stressful, and that getting a false negative could encourage someone to have unprotected sex.

But since the disease is no longer an inevitable death sentence and it is clear from the epidemic’s continuing spread that Americans are having unprotected sex anyway, those objections began to pale.

This will make for great foreplay. "Before we fuck, let's have some fun with this swab."

I guess I have mixed feelings about this. Why is HIV so special that it merits an in-home test? Or, alternatively, is this the wave of the future, and at-home tests for other STIs are on their way?

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

I'm divided on the logic behind this move. There is already so much mis-information about HIV/AIDS and relying on a home test kit for accurate results, seems misguided to me. Let's face it, a lot of people are not that capable of using these tests and I think the possibility of false positives, may cause more confusion than clarity. Like Buckmark, I see this as possibly a slippery slope to home testing for all sorts of things. I also doubt the ability of most people to use the test correctly.

This will make for great foreplay. "Before we fuck, let's have some fun with this swab."

I think exactly the same thing, I'm sure some people will do that.

I don't know it is in the US, but over here, when you receive a positive result, you have separate conversations with a doctor and a psychologist. They try to calm you down and inform you about HIV. I fear some people will test positive at home and do stupid things, like maybe commit suicide. Or perhaps they will be too scared to seek medical help. I don't know, I just don't think it's a good idea.

Why couldn't this fucking home test have been available NINE fucking months earlier?!?!? I'm fucking fucking pissed right now. Goddamn CDC. I may have been able to save my life, and others could have too, rather than them sitting around and fucking squabbling about a few percentage points!!

The day I got this news, I told my sister that they are going to find the FUHHCKKKING cure for this thing the day after I die.

Whatever, I'm glad it's released. Now you can keep your sons and boyfriends the hell away from me, for sure...confirmed right there in the bedroom. It's not up to me to just practice safe sex. Nope. Now I've got to be vetted, the same way I would have been testing everyone with that kit it if I wasn't positive. What a day.

I've got a relic of a disease. The writing is right there on the wall.

Why couldn't this fucking home test have been available NINE fucking months earlier?!?!? I'm fucking fucking pissed right now. Goddamn CDC. I may have been able to save my life, and others could have too, rather than them sitting around and fucking squabbling about a few percentage points!!

The day I got this news, I told my sister that they are going to find the FUCKKKING cure for this thing the day after I die.

Whatever, I'm glad it's released. Now you can keep your sons and boyfriends the hell away from me, for sure...confirmed right there in the bedroom. It's not up to me to just practice safe sex. Nope. Now I've got to be vetted, the same way I would have been doing with that kit it if I wasn't positive. What a day.

Um. Yikes?

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Why couldn't this fucking home test have been available NINE fucking months earlier?!?!? I'm fucking fucking pissed right now. Goddamn CDC. I may have been able to save my life, and others could have too, rather than them sitting around and fucking squabbling about a few percentage points!! .

I'm struggling to understand your reaction to this news ... HIV test are available for the asking without them having to be delivered to your bedroom . .

What's so difficult to understand? On-the-spot testing vs. doctor office testing every few months. You have instant results. Instant results means you're INSTANTLY aware that the person standing before you has HIV, vs. giving a person, or ME, the ability to practice safely and disclose when I'M comfortable to do so.

Look, as self-centered as I am coming off right now, I'm not an idiot. It's a good thing for the population, especially the gay population, to have and to use. I feel like this very effective tool will be the thing that drastically drives down infection rates. My beef is that it should have fucking been fucking released a long ass fucking time ago.

What's so difficult to understand? On-the-spot testing vs. doctor office testing every few months. You have instant results. Instant results means you know INSTANTLY that the person is a threat, vs. leaving it up to me to practice safely and disclose when I'm comfortable.

NO , its not that simple because of the window period between infection , and a positive antibody test . Your response is one more reason HIV home testing kits may not be the best idea ... among many in my opinion .

Knowing someones HIV status is only one factor in practicing safe sex , condoms and personal responsibility is another huge factor .

I'm still confused about the difference between the 20 minute tests given in health department vans, and this new home test. It seems most do not have problems with those given in the vans. If those are more accurate, why didn't they just market that test for home use? I don't get it.

I'm all for new means of testing. I, too, am concerned about the accuracy. There are many who would be much more likely to test at home. We were just at gay pride. The health department or some organization had one of those 20 minute testing vans, right in a high profile location. I was trying to imagine who would get tested at such an event, when they were going there to have fun. It seemed like a great way to ruin the festivities, if they tested poz. And, if they did test poz, they would have to leave the "AIDS Trailer" in a sea of people. How would you compose yourself? If you came out crying or looking worried, everyone would know you just got a positive result. You would have to be a great actor to come out and act like everything went well. But, as the guy running the van said, anything that gets even a few people to test is worth it. I watched the van for several hours. I never saw anyone going in to get tested. I actually felt it could be seen as insensitive to park the testing van with hundreds of people around it. I would not want to get a positive result and then have to come out with everyone watching and analyzing my expressions. And, I'm sure many had former sex partners watching. That could stir up a huge hornets nests, right when the person just learned their status and hadn't even begun to process it.

My point, I think there will be a higher percentage of people with the means to buy the test, who would take a home test over a health dept/testing van test. And, the internet has helped facilitate many infections, beginning with AOL to Manhunt and A4A. By just reading the profiles and interacting with people on those sites, you know many will go bareback, as long as you say you're neg. If a home test allows those people to take a test first, then it is better than nothing--even with the issues with accuracy. I mean, they were going to go raw anyway. Of course, a condom is the best protection, besides abstinence. But, many just refuse to wear them. I would hope to see better accuracy.

Jg..you raise a good point. If I take my situation as an example, the guy I topped that night, unprotected, still had not experienced seroconversion sickness. Actually, two days later, he came down with what he thought was a severe case of tonsilitis and flu. He ddnt know it was seroconversion until two weeks later, when I was sick as a dog, in the doctor's office, being given the worst news of my life.

So, if I would have tested him in my bedroom that night, he could have tested negative. So, again, it's a valid point.

As for the other posts, enough about not understanding the time frame! Get real. no one runs to the doctor every time he/she sleeps with someone. But you can, ostensibly, swab every person's cheek that you hook up with.

Jg..you raise a good point. If I take my situation as an example, the guy I topped that night, unprotected, still had not experienced seroconversion sickness. Actually, it happened two days after we had met. He came down with what he thought as a severe case of tonsilitis and flu. So, had I tested him, he may have still been negative that night. So, again, it's a valid point.

Thanks , I'm not trying to be argumentative but there are things about this home testing kit that I have my doubts about and I'm still trying to sort it all out myself .

Seroconverted: Early 80sTested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. Last regimen: Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky )Past regimensFun stuff (in the past): HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

As for the other posts, enough about not understanding the time frame! Get real. no one runs to the doctor every time he/she sleeps with someone. But you can, ostensibly, swab every person's cheek that you hook up with.

There going to have to change the name of the test to home orgy kit ... it will come with party hats but no condoms . All kidding aside and getting real about it I seriously doubt this kit is intended to quick screen hookups because that is a recipe for disaster and leads to false sense of security . Condoms used correctly are a far better reasonable alternative .

Is the average joe going to assume the home test means that he swabs, waits a bit, get an "HIV Negative" reading, so he is "clean" and can bareback.

Rinse. Repeat. So there will be MORE barebacking, and more people spreading HIV during the window period between infection and HIV positive antibodies.

Also, people will assume they can bareback, unless there is a positive. So the mind set shifts from safesex "let's always try to play safe, unless there is trust" to "let's always bareback, unless there is glitch."

How much does the thing cost? So he takes it on Friday and is "clean" (I'm purposefully choosing this offensive terminology) and what does he do the next Wedneday? Repeat the test? But he was just clean! Surely every couple of weeks is enough.

How many joes will think like that???

« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 07:38:37 AM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Assuming the kits have a moderate cost, who has the $$$ to be testing every trick?

Joe

^ this , and if I was invited for a romp and some guy pulled out a swab to test me I would want to know why he assumed we were getting ready to BB or at least I would think he was misinformed about HIV testing . I would probably tell him to go fuck himself .

Serosorting works a heck of allot better between two poz people and not so well between two people who want to believe each other HIV negative so they can do the bump and grind without latex .

There are plenty of people that want to know if their mate is positive, and not just for unprotected sex, but under the auspice of making an informed decision. Look, as ridiculous as this may sound now, I ended up meeting a guy about 4 months before catching this. In all the years of dating guys, he was only the second guy I had come across that was HIV positive, or at least admitted it. Well, I didn't want him giving me a bj, I was apprehensive about deeply kissing him, and I was reluctant to do a lot of things to him, other than to have sex while wearing a condom. I don't think I was thinking any differently than a lot of other people, which is why I think that when things are about to get sexual, people will use the kit. I don't believe that it's because they are looking to automatically jump to unprotected sex.

The reason that I'm upset is because I'm still fairly new to this, and I haven't dated much as a result. So, if someone I just met does pull out the testing kit in that situation, I don't have control over my privacy. They have a right to know, I ge that, which is why I think It's going to become standard practice to use these kits the way we've been discussing. Don't trick yourself into thinking it isn't. A few years back, I was dating a doctor for a while, and the first night we got sexual, he pulled out one of the cheek swabs.

I can only think of the amount of time and money devoted to this thing...is this going to make any difference whatsoever? People who are scared to death of taking the test won't change their minds just because they can do it indoors.

Stigma and shame will go on as long as people still believe its a death sentence and I blame doctors for that. 15 years later and everyone still thinks were Tom Hanks.

There are plenty of people that want to know if their mate is positive, and not just for unprotected sex, but under the auspice of making an informed decision. Look, as ridiculous as this may sound now, I ended up meeting a guy about 4 months before catching this. In all the years of dating guys, he was only the second guy I had come across that was HIV positive, or at least admitted it. Well, I didn't want him giving me a bj, I was apprehensive about deeply kissing him, and I was reluctant to do a lot of things to him, other than to have sex while wearing a condom. I don't think I was thinking any differently than a lot of other people, which is why I think that when things are about to get sexual, people will use the kit. I don't believe that it's because they are looking to automatically jump to unprotected sex.

The reason that I'm upset is because I'm still fairly new to this, and I haven't dated much as a result. So, if someone I just met does pull out the testing kit in that situation, I don't have control over my privacy. They have a right to know, I ge that, which is why I think It's going to become standard practice to use these kits the way we've been discussing. Don't trick yourself into thinking it isn't. A few years back, I was dating a doctor for a while, and the first night we got sexual, he pulled out one of the cheek swabs.

Trust me, this will not become standard practice. No one wants to know, period. Thats why people use condoms and refrain from discussing health issues when having sex.

This guy you dated was doctor, hence his behavior. Not common though.

And man its kinda sad that you were so scared of dating a poz guy that you were even afraid of him giving you a bj, which man, its kind of insane as that poses no threat to a negative person whatsoever.

I know you're just being honest but its people like you that leads me to believe sometimes that Im gonna stay alone forever.

There going to have to change the name of the test to home orgy kit ... it will come with party hats but no condoms

Lulz.

But I believe Jeff is right. The purpose of the home test kit is to find out if you are HIV+ so you can get the appropriate medical care you need. The purpose is not to screen tricks and determine whether or not you should use a condom. Duh.

The at-home test doesn't eliminate the need to practice safer sex. But apparently the test is being misused before it is even available.

I can already envision a slew of new questions in the "Am I Infected" forum about convoluted sexual encounters either preceded by or followed by an at-home test. It's just a matter of time.

Logged

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

I've got nothing but respect and admiration for those of us who have been living with this for a long time, and I hope to be just like you. But, I also think that you are only looking at the issue as a person on this side of the fence. The fear of this disease is real. The fear exists despite the perception of changing attitudes. I strongly feel that most people will use it the way that the guy I dated used it, as another layer of precaution. Hell, there was a time when I asked him if he could get a box for me!

Here's something else... say two people use the home test, but AFTER they had sex. If any "surprises" show up, the exposed person could rush to get PEP within the 72 hr timeframe.

We live in a world now that loves to collect and process data. This test is a good thing. A great thing, even. I'm pissed that I didn't have a chance to use it, and no matter how much I write, squawk, bitch or complain, I have hiv now and it's not going away. I think the widespread use of it as a precursor to even meeting up will probably box me in. Sucks, but there's not much I can do. I'm in the vast minority here on this planet.. a gay guy with HIV.

I am sure there are plenty of situations in which this test is a good idea. But also plenty in which it is maybe a gimmick not to mention a money maker. And as I said above, (edited now for clarity, sorry), there are some situations in which it may be counter productive in preventing HIV transmission.

Kind of like this whole idea of truvada as pre-exposure protection. A mixed bag.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

I'm still confused about the difference between the 20 minute tests given in health department vans, and this new home test. It seems most do not have problems with those given in the vans. If those are more accurate, why didn't they just market that test for home use? I don't get it.

The tests are basically identical. It's not that the Oraquick In-Home test is less sensitive, it's that more self-testers in the clinical trial jumped the gun and used the assay before the close of the window period. In studies in which professionals screened individuals and then conducted the tests, there were fewer false negatives, which helped to improve the overall sensitivity score.

The bottom line here is that the In-Home test absolutely, positively should not be considered reliable until 90 days have passed since the last possible instance of risky behavior (which, obviously, can be a tricky thing for some people going it alone to figure out, without professional guidance). I mean, we've already received one "Am I Infected?" post from someone wondering how soon after possible exposure will the test be reliable, despite plenty of black-and-white media coverage indicating, in no uncertain terms, that the test shouldn't be done before the three-month window period is up. This rush for results, despite the risk of false negatives, is what we're going to be dealing with here -- and that's a problem.

I think anything that increases the number of people testing is a good thing. This is simply another Public Health tool. Will it be mis-used by some? Undoubtedly. Will it be used, as intended, by most - of course.

Look -- anyone who actually uses this to "screen tricks" and sees a negative as permission to bareback, well, they would have found some other reason without the test and will, very likely, be joining us in these rooms -- whether or not this test was available.

False negatives happen on ALL HIV tests -- it's unfortunate, but it is the reality. Yes, professionals can do some screening to help ascertain if someone might be in a window period -- but they are completely reliant on info provided by the patient. We all know that patient's can lie to get what they want. Additionally, even if they are thought to be in a window period, I think it would be rare for a test to not be given if the person insists (if they had one "risky" event, they could very likely have had previous ones too) -- so, I'm no more concerned about false negs at home than I am in a testing site.The one area that does bother me a bit -- home testing minimzes/eliminates the ability to help folks find support and care services if a positive result is received. However, I still think it is better to know than not.

Pretty much every home-testing analysis has caused hand-wringing and "what-ifs". From pregnancy testing, to glucose monitoring, to cholesterol testing, to anti-coagulant monitoring -- hell, even at home BP monitoring is fraught with "what-ifs".

I am happy this is available to those who would otherwise avoid testing.

I think this approval is great. Some people including me kept putting off testing because of embarassment, scheduling and sometimes inconvenience. I kept saying to myself tomorrow I'll go get tested. Tomorrow would come and I would put it off. Finally I ordered a home access test kit where you prick your finger, mail in a blood sample and call in a few days later for the result. I was positive. It obviously prompted me to get treatment. Some people just want the opportunity to do it in the privacy of their own home.

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

While I do think knowledge is power, I also worry about the mental side of a positive result. It took me months to be comforable with what was going on, I also had friends and family. What about those that take this at home and decide it is not worth living?

While I do think knowledge is power, I also worry about the mental side of a positive result. It took me months to be comforable with what was going on, I also had friends and family. What about those that take this at home and decide it is not worth living?

Or, given that so many heads think that these things can be used to test their random trick of the night on the spot, can you imagine the DRUUUUHMA that would ensue if someone tested positive in your bedroom? Would the average queen be actually equipped to provide any valuable support to a person who sees a plus+ sign on their test. I highly and seriously doubt it.

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

I think taking a test to determine whether you are going to have sex with someone is questionable at best. I do question people's objection to home testing because of the lack of emotional support however. As I stated previously I found out through a home access test and the amount of support you can get over a telephone is pretty useless. The woman on the phone was very nice. She simply said that the test was positive for HIV. She then asked whether I had a doctor anad if I needed any kind of support. My point is: If that kind of testing has been allowed with that kind of "support" for years, how much worse is it finding out for yourself.I think it gives another way for people to find out there status...knowledge is power.

Don't be misled, I am certainly not against it. I just hope that the emotional aftermath for that individual can be dealt with in the privacy of his/her home. Many still think this is a death sentence.

Or, given that so many heads think that these things can be used to test their random trick of the night on the spot, can you imagine the DRUUUUHMA that would ensue if someone tested positive in your bedroom? Would the average queen be actually equipped to provide any valuable support to a person who sees a plus+ sign on their test. I highly and seriously doubt it.

Case in point: here's a real life situation with someone who tested in a medical healthcare setting:

Counseling? When I was dxd, the doc said "you have AIDS, what's that mean to you?" At first I was speechless and then I mumbled something about knowing it's not a death sentence anymore. He said "OK...any questions" to which I responded "not right now." That was it!

Another doc from MD Anderson Cancer Center came in the next day and said "hey, I was treating this in NYC in the 1980's. It's not the same disease, we can reverse these numbers, you are going to be OK."

It took me two months to get into a psychiatrist and get on prozac.

In reality, a home test is probably not a bad idea, per se, in that it at least gives people another opportunity to test. Taking into consideration everything you folks have said about counseling, false negatives, false positives and so on, at least it makes it more available.

Just imagine someone testing at home alone with NO support and seeing a positive result and their possible reaction? And again, as I said before -- I still think these tests will lead many people to having a sense of false security where they will not test with any regularity: and we will continue to see on hookup profiles "Neg as of 10/2012" and it will be 2016

Seroconverted: Early 80sTested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. Last regimen: Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky )Past regimensFun stuff (in the past): HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

All the worry wells with the aids phobia are going to be really impressed with this new miracle test when they have a trick over for a swab and shag and end up with a false positive and a trick running out the door to tell the world you got the aids .

That's when its going to hit the folks that misuse this test that ... WOW , maybe I should have gone to a confidential clinic for that test after all . Stigma Baby .

All the worry wells with the aids phobia are going to be really impressed with this new miracle test when they have a trick over for a swab and shag and end up with a false positive and a trick running out the door to tell the world you got the aids .

That's when its going to hit the folks that misuse this test that ... WOW , maybe I should have gone to a confidential clinic for that test after all . Stigma Baby .

Oh, and how about the typhoid Maries? They're probably gonna carry the same old used-up swab for months and months. Put it back in the box, seal it with some Elmer's glue, and pretend it's new. They'll be all like, "See? I'm negative! Let's bareback ASAP!!!".

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Oh, and how about the typhoid Maries? They're probably gonna carry the same old used-up swab for months and months. Put it back in the box, seal it with some Elmer's glue, and pretend it's new. They'll be all like, "See? I'm negative! Let's bareback ASAP!!!".

Honestly, anyone who uses this test as a preamble to barebacking is an idiot. Especially with the rather high rate of false negatives.

So yeah, AM I INFECTED is going to be fun.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

IKR? You know it won't be long before we need to answer to some idiot who'll be in a panic wondering whether the swab that was used was legit, or if it was an expired kit, etc.

Joyful times ahead.

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

IKR? You know it won't be long before we need to answer to some idiot who'll be in a panic wondering whether the swab that was used was legit, or if it was an expired kit, etc.

Joyful times ahead.

Might be a good idea for those patient moderators of the "AM I" fun house to put together a lessons/fact sheet of FAQS (Frequently Asked Questions) - maybe call it "Home Testing: FAQS for Worried FUQS" or something along those lines.....

Might be a good idea for those patient moderators of the "AM I" fun house to put together a lessons/fact sheet of FAQS (Frequently Asked Questions) - maybe call it "Home Testing: FAQS for Worried FUQS" or something along those lines.....

The patient moderators? What about the rest of us?

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

I absolutely would have been more likely to get tested had I been able to do it in my own home. Like a pregnancy test I doubt one result would have been enough to convince me either way. I think there are both pros and cons about people finding out their HIV status without being immediately reported to the DHHS in their state.

However, I have no idea what I would have done had I found myself positive. I probably would have tried to find someone who was positive to talk to (Hello, poz.com) and proceeded from there to get medical attention.

I do not see this development as a bad thing just one more tool in the arsenal to hopefully let more people who are already positive know that they are. I don't think anyone will be testing tricks with it, but I suppose someone will do that.

I think there are I don't think anyone will be testing tricks with it, but I suppose someone will do that.

There have already been post here on the forum excited about the prospect of using this test for this purpose . A couple of post is not a good representation of what the masses will do but its discouraging none the less .

Come on, give those Am I Infected folks some credit. Just wait until they ask you if they can get teh AIDS from the kit itself. You just know someone will be this paranoid.

Joe

Seeing as how this already happens with both blood and rapid tests, it's going to be a seamless transition.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

I think this is a very positive development. More testing is a good thing. The more people know their status, the better.

Yes, the test could be misused, but I believe the benefits far outweigh the potential problems.

The high rate of false negative is worrisome. However, unfortunately, that is true with all HIV tests due to the testing window and the need for retesting to confirm one is truly negative. I know some people who really feared testing even once, but even after an initial negative result, having them get retested at 3 months was a herculean task. The availability of an in-home test should make it easier for people to confirm.

I really hope the information in in-home kit properly explains this -the only 2 results are really "negative 3 months ago" and "positive now". Not "negative now" and "positive now". Ideally the kit should have multiple swabs so this retesting can be done by everyone.

There going to have to change the name of the test to home orgy kit ... it will come with party hats but no condoms . All kidding aside and getting real about it I seriously doubt this kit is intended to quick screen hookups because that is a recipe for disaster and leads to false sense of security . Condoms used correctly are a far better reasonable alternative .

Just read that the price will be between $40 and $60 .I don't know which orgies you attend, but that would be a hell of an entrance fee.I doubt even a Costco discount is going to help with that.

I wonder if any insurance is going to cover this, seeing how the very inexpensive condoms are not covered. It is a bit unsettling that even Obamacare does not cover condoms, seeing how it covers birth control for women.

Come on, give those Am I Infected folks some credit. Just wait until they ask you if they can get teh AIDS from the kit itself. You just know someone will be this paranoid.

Joe

We've had that question countless times already - about home kits as well as being tested by a health care professional. Here's a recent example. Haven't had one about home kits lately, but we've definitely had them many times.

My biggest worry about this new home test is the unbelievably high rate of false negative results. Sure, they may be from people jumping the gun and testing too soon, but there's going to be people who just assume it's correct and not follow up with testing at the appropriate time. Until they produce an idiot-proof home test (where you analyse the results yourself), I don't think they're a good idea.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

We've had that question countless times already - about home kits as well as being tested by a health care professional. Here's a recent example. Haven't had one about home kits lately, but we've definitely had them many times.

My biggest worry about this new home test is the unbelievably high rate of false negative results. Sure, they may be from people jumping the gun and testing too soon, but there's going to be people who just assume it's correct and not follow up with testing at the appropriate time. Until they produce an idiot-proof home test (where you analyse the results yourself), I don't think they're a good idea.

What about the ones who test for 6 years out and continue to test negative?

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

They'll probably test positive for the other HIV (the Human Idiocy Vector).

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

I'm wondering if you can tamper with the test to make it always give a positive result . It would be a great practical joke for my best friend who has it coming to him for some of the stuff he pulls on me like the no tear toilet paper he put in my bathroom this morning .

I wonder if any insurance is going to cover this, seeing how the very inexpensive condoms are not covered. It is a bit unsettling that even Obamacare does not cover condoms, seeing how it covers birth control for women.

Birth control for women are prescribed medications-condoms aren't. If they decided to sell the birth control meds otc, I can guarantee they wouldn't be as cheap as condoms.

Logged

I've never killed anyone, but I frequently get satisfaction reading the obituary notices.-Clarence Darrow

Hellraiser brings up a good point. Pregnancy tests, too, are available for home use, are known to have a track record of false indications, and can be the source of some very unwelcomed news for some, yet it is largely an effective and useful tool in planning for the next steps. I feel that an HIV home testing kit, by and large, will have the same advantages.

Some of you have brought up the concern that people will not get the right counseling or support with home testing, should they get unwelcomed news. There seems to be this MYTH that everyone gets support in a clinical setting when they are diagnosed with HIV. There may be a counseling component in places like clinics, but it's definitely not like that in U.S. private practice. I got the right amount of medical attention from an excellent specialist, but he made it abundantly clear that he is not a counselor. For that, he recommended a few support groups.

If you look beyond your own life experience, and perhaps your own community, it may occur to you that there are people who would not, under NO circumstances, go to a clinic for testing. Or, it may be shocking to you to believe that there are lots of people who don't want to bring up the subject with their doctor, nor do they want their doctor to know the results. What if you're married, and you're asking your FAMILY DOCTOR for an HIV test?! Anonymous, convenient, WIDESPREAD, and accurate testing WITHOUT shame or guilt VS. protecting some people who get bad news and can't cope? ...at the expense of a person's life and health?? f-ck you very much, CDC.

There seems to be this MYTH that everyone gets support in a clinical setting when they are diagnosed with HIV. There may be a counseling component in places like clinics, but it's definitely not like that in U.S. private practice. I got the right amount of medical attention from an excellent specialist, but he made it abundantly clear that he is not a counselor. For that, he recommended a few support groups.

NY, but a medical doctor does do counseling, regardless of what it may be called.

When the doctor talks over your risk-timeline with you and advises you where you are in the window period and whether or not you are testing late enough for a conclusive result, she's giving you medical counsel.

You can't get that at home.

When the doctor tells you what your test results mean and indicate whether or not further testing is warranted, he's giving you medical counsel.

You cannot get this at home.

When she gives you any information about your virus, such as what your numbers mean, if or when you need to go on meds, or when you're given instructions on how to take care of yourself and/or take your meds etc, she's giving you medical counsel.

You cannot get this at home either.

This is crucial support and information (counsel) that people getting positive test results need.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I bet the people that wont go to a clinic under any circumstances for an HIV test will be begging for an appointment after they get a positive test or a false positive test .

I'm not saying home HIV testing is the worst idea in the world but my decades of living with aids falls heavily on the side of home HIV testing is not the best idea .

The fact remains a person needs medical and emotional support that comes with HIV testing for either a negative or positive result . Its not a logical argument to factor in that people may not get counseling anyway if they go to a testing center or doctor , its like saying doctors make mistakes so don't go to doctors .

Hellraiser brings up a good point. Pregnancy tests, too, are available for home use, are known to have a track record of false indications, and can be the source of some very unwelcomed news for some, yet it is largely an effective and useful tool in planning for the next steps. I feel that an HIV home testing kit, by and large, will have the same advantages.

Some of you have brought up the concern that people will not get the right counseling or support with home testing, should they get unwelcomed news. There seems to be this MYTH that everyone gets support in a clinical setting when they are diagnosed with HIV. There may be a counseling component in places like clinics, but it's definitely not like that in U.S. private practice. I got the right amount of medical attention from an excellent specialist, but he made it abundantly clear that he is not a counselor. For that, he recommended a few support groups.

If you look beyond your own life experience, and perhaps your own community, it may occur to you that there are people who would not, under NO circumstances, go to a clinic for testing. Or, it may be shocking to you to believe that there are lots of people who don't want to bring up the subject with their doctor, nor do they want their doctor to know the results. What if you're married, and you're asking your FAMILY DOCTOR for an HIV test?! Anonymous, convenient, WIDESPREAD, and accurate testing WITHOUT shame or guilt VS. protecting some people who get bad news and can't cope? ...at the expense of a person's life and health?? f-ck you very much, CDC.

Many many many cities around the world provide anonymous testing centers. Otherwise, some good points. Nobody is saying the home testing kits are 100 FAIL bad idea, you realize....

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

NY, but a medical doctor does do counseling, regardless of what it may be called.

When the doctor talks over your risk-timeline with you and advises you where you are in the window period and whether or not you are testing late enough for a conclusive result, she's giving you medical counsel.

You can't get that at home.

When the doctor tells you what your test results mean and indicate whether or not further testing is warranted, he's giving you medical counsel.

You cannot get this at home.

When she gives you any information about your virus, such as what your numbers mean, if or when you need to go on meds, or when you're given instructions on how to take care of yourself and/or take your meds etc, she's giving you medical counsel.

You cannot get this at home either.

This is crucial support and information (counsel) that people getting positive test results need.

Your words, they fall like soft rain upon deaf ears.

Everybody wants a cheat.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

I bet the people that wont go to a clinic under any circumstances for an HIV test will be begging for an appointment after they get a positive test or a false positive test .

You're probably right for the most part on that score, although there will be those who are so terrified that they won't. Terrified that others will find out, mainly. After all, isn't that the main reason for testing at home?

This is one of the ways in which the home pregnancy test argument falls down. Untreated hiv can be hidden - for years sometimes - but a positive pregnancy test can only be hidden for a matter of weeks or months.

The cat's going to be out of the bag in much less than a year. A pregnancy is visible and obvious and that woman is going to be urged to get medical attention in a much more timely fashion than someone living with an invisible virus.

Another consideration - with a FALSE NEGATIVE pregnancy result, the mistake will be apparent very quickly, within a few weeks or a month. A FALSE NEGATIVE HIV result can go undiscovered for YEARS.

Pregnancy is a normal human state of being. Having hiv is not. While there may still be stigma attached to out-of-wedlock or teen pregnancy, it is no where near the level of stigma that is attached to hiv.

Also, pregnancy testing at home is very often a joyous occasion and it's nice to be able to privately share that moment with your partner. My partner and I did mine in almost a ceremonial fashion and we were thrilled when the test turned positive.

When is anyone ever thrilled to have an hiv test turn positive?

Home pregnancy testing and home hiv testing cannot be compared. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Allowing people to test for hiv in the closet only serves to keep hiv in the closet, despite what the manufacturers of the kits want people to think.

As for the lack of "counseling" that goes along with home hiv testing, what has really got me worried about this particular test is its high rate of FALSE NEGATIVES. A person who isn't given counsel about the proper testing window and who isn't given counsel about how to perform the test correctly may still be poz but dangerously think they don't.

Sure, there are instructions that come with the test, but c'mon, how many people are not going to carefully read the fine print? How many people with reading or comprehension difficulties are going to screw up and get a FALSE NEGATIVE? Far too many, if you ask me.

A person who only thinks they are hiv negative is a potentially dangerous person.

We should not be putting medical diagnostic capabilities into the hands of lay-men when it comes to serious illness. (Pregnancy is NOT an illness.) It should be left to the health care professionals. As I said earlier, until they design an idiot-proof home test, I don't think they're a good idea.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

The fact remains a person needs medical and emotional support that comes with HIV testing for either a negative or positive result .

I couldn't agree more. BOTH need counseling -- on what a poz results means, next steps, etc. A neg result -- a reminder on what you need do to maintain that result -- as well as a reminder that, if a risky event has occured -- when to come back for a definitive test (well, definitive for THAT event).

Its not a logical argument to factor in that people may not get counseling anyway if they go to a testing center or doctor , its like saying doctors make mistakes so don't go to doctors .

The other part of this is, though............ is it logical to say -- if no counseling, then please go on living without the knowledge that you are positive??

there are a whole host of reasons why people avoid testing -- stigma, denial, etc..... And this can happen to anyone -- no matter how much you know about HIV. I put off testing for a very long time -- despite knowing the risks I had taken -- despite knowing how HIV is transmitted and what existed out there for treatment -- despite having a Master of Public Health degree!! The human brain's capability to deny logic &/or facts is immeasurable.ANY tool that can help more people get tested is a good idea IMO.

As I said earlier, until they design an idiot-proof home test, I don't think they're a good idea.

Really -- if this is the likely vehicle that gets someone to test and find out they are positive before ending up fighting for the life with PCP or something else? You really do believe that they should get that bad? I don't think you do -- not to put words in your mouth, but you have shown far more compassion than that.Yes -- it would be ideal if they went in to a clinic or doctor office, but we have evidence that many don't / won't. You said it best "A person who only thinks they are hiv negative is a potentially dangerous person." -- so let's give them all the tools possible to find the truth. There will be countless more true positive results than false negatives. Until testing -- both groups are "dangerous people".

Mike

edited to add: And I state this even though I spent years doing diagnostic testing in medical settings. Home testing is not ideal, but it's drawbacks are not sufficient to warrant banning them.

Pregnancy tests, too, are available for home use, are known to have a track record of false indications, and can be the source of some very unwelcomed news for some, yet it is largely an effective and useful tool in planning for the next steps. I feel that an HIV home testing kit, by and large, will have the same advantages.

Mike, OK, here's what is getting to me.

The manufacturer claims that home hiv testing will take away the stigma of hiv testing, but I don't think it will. It will only reinforce the idea that it's something shameful, to be done where no-one else will know about it. It keeps it in the closet.

What I think they should be doing instead is making hiv tests a routine part of health care, included in all the other routine tests such as the ones that are generally referred to as a CBC. Far too many people are not being tested in a health-care setting because of the whole stupid "risk group" idea.

As I've said here many times, sexually speaking, the ONLY TRUE risk group is that group of people who have had unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse at some point in their lives. Let's face it, that includes most adults on the planet. Every adult should be regularly screened for hiv as a matter of course. Hep C too for that matter. The hep C death rate has exceeded the hiv death rate in the States.

If they really want to normalise hiv testing, they'd be offering rapid tests in Walmart like I hear they do BP monitoring and diabetes glucose tests.

I do understand there are pros to hiv home tests, but I'm not sure the pros outweigh the cons.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

By the way, the reason I was going on about comparing hiv home test kits to pregnancy home test kits was the following comment:

Mike, OK, here's what is getting to me.

The manufacturer claims that home hiv testing will take away the stigma of hiv testing, but I don't think it will. It will only reinforce the idea that it's something shameful, to be done where no-one else will know about it. It keeps it in the closet.

What I think they should be doing instead is making hiv tests a routine part of health care, included in all the other routine tests such as the ones that are generally referred to as a CBC. Far too many people are not being tested in a health-care setting because of the whole stupid "risk group" idea.

As I've said here many times, sexually speaking, the ONLY TRUE risk group is that group of people who have had unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse at some point in their lives. Let's face it, that includes most adults on the planet. Every adult should be regularly screened for hiv as a matter of course. Hep C too for that matter. The hep C death rate has exceeded the hiv death rate in the States.

If they really want to normalise hiv testing, they'd be offering rapid tests in Walmart like I hear they do BP monitoring and diabetes glucose tests.

I do understand there are pros to hiv home tests, but I'm not sure the pros outweigh the cons.

Other than the very last line -- I agree with everything you said (I figured we were more in agreement than not).From my POV -- a less than ideal home test that gets some folks to treatment, is better than letting them get deathly ill to find out their status. I put it in the "don't let the desire for perfection be the enemy of progress". There are a whole lot of things that would be better -- but right now, this is what we have available.

When only 28% of diagnosed HIV-infected people (in the US) are actually on treatment and undetectable, I have a hard time getting all worked up about a "at home" HIV test.

+++++

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

You're probably right for the most part on that score, although there will be those who are so terrified that they won't. Terrified that others will find out, mainly. After all, isn't that the main reason for testing at home?

Of course you are right about this . If I had botherd to carefully read what you had wrote before I posted I wouldn't have because you pretty much summed up how I feel about it .

Also , for me and from a purely emotional standpoint as someone who knows about stigma from living with HIV for so long the point you made about reinforcing shame and the hide and test thing is very valid for me .

It may reinforce stigma, but for many people that's just a fact of life. Do you have any idea that at every major HIV clinic there's a not insignificant portion of patients that are petrified about even being seen going in there for an appointment? So of course there are even more that are petrified to be seen going into an HIV testing center. It's also why a significant amount of people that have been diagnosed are not in regular treatment. So fuck your concern about reinforcing stigma -- do you want more people to be in treatment or not? This is a joke of an argument frankly.

I agree the test will not do squat about stigma and laughed when I read that part of the maketing pitch . They just want to sell the test and couldn't care less what happens after you walk away from the cash register .

Do you have any idea that at every major HIV clinic there's a not insignificant portion of patients that are petrified about even being seen going in there for an appointment? So of course there are even more that are petrified to be seen going into an HIV testing center.

This is true!

When I first tested positive I was embarrased to go to the HIV clinic and the ASO. While I did get over that pretty quickly, I can understand the feeling of someone preferring to test at home.

Do any of you sit and wonder that this was unanimously approved by the FDA advisory panel? It's not like it was a 5-4 split decision. Even scream-and-yell entities like Housing Works advocated for this. Doesn't any of that make you reconsider your emotional response to this topic?

Do any of you sit and wonder that this was unanimously approved by the FDA advisory panel? It's not like it was a 5-4 split decision. Even scream-and-yell entities like Housing Works advocated for this. Doesn't any of that make you reconsider your emotional response to this topic?

we have too, because it's already a done deal. the genie is out of the bottle and if the test isn't on the store shelf yet, it will be soon. Now all we can do is wait to see the effect this WILL have.

just like the Truvada prescriptions for non-pozzies before any specific risk situation, the at-home test is just another new tool added the arsenal this year against the epidemic, no matter what the opposing view was/is. Let's hope BOTH tools have good outcomes now, and the cautions against how they could fail or falter do NOT come true.

I agree the test will not do squat about stigma and laughed when I read that part of the maketing pitch . They just want to sell the test and couldn't care less what happens after you walk away from the cash register .

Agree - it won't change anything about the stigma.I really don't know what will. I wish I did.

Participants in the study found the oral swab tests easy to use and “highly acceptable,” according to the researchers. The in-home tests helped these MSM identify high-risk partners—in fact, 10 men tested positive—and the tests helped the participants modify their own behavior so they were at lower risk of contracting HIV.

I dunno. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

In the previous three months, participants had an average of 15 male sexual partners, 11 occasions of unprotected receptive anal intercourse and nine occasions of unprotected insertive anal intercourse. In addition, 48 percent had a lifetime history of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), 93 percent used alcohol in the previous three months, and 56 percent used marijuana during that same time period.

sad, scary, worrisome numbers in that report.

Nearly half had already had an STI and yet 73% of the time still didn't use condoms. That's some hefty risk behavior in need of some counseling. Wonder what kind of HIV message, counseling or education any of the men had received over the years? Whatever it was, apparently it wasn't working. Yet wonder why they used condoms 27% of the time? Was this their choice or at the behest of their partners who were more informed? Would education, counseling and condoms have worked just as well? (Or maybe even better considering the risk of false poz/neg from the test and the lack of risk from condoms).

Quote

Ten men tested positive for HIV; six of them did not know they were living with the virus. In addition, two partners disclosed that they were HIV positive once they were asked to take a home test

In real life, how applicable is this study anyway, as those kits came with a cost of at least $280 over the 3 month period? There might have been a lot of different attitudes and outcomes if those participants were having to pay out all that money and then finding out their potential trick was poz, or poz and knew it already but weren't disclosing before perhaps attempting to have unprotected sex. (btw the way, what was the situation with the missing 2 men in that statistic?)

But maybe money and real life just doesn't factor into the studies before these things are implemented. I mean look at Truvada. Recent paperwork at my house shoed it to cost over $950 a month, yet it's beingg recommended as a viable option for people who aren't even poz. Whose going to pay that out-of-pocket? What insurance if going to pay for that kind of "preventative" medication? I'm all for other options; but it seems many of these options will end up being too expensive to actually be used outside of a study where the kits or meds are provided for free.

argh! as usual with most studies and nearly any news article, I'm left with too many additional questions and not enough answers.

I think it has good uses and bad uses. The research investigated it merits as a screening tool so HIV negative committed barebackers could try to stay negative while continuing to bareback. So obviously it would be a good thing if the tool worked. One gets the impression here, with these research subjects, there isn't going to be any change to safesex practices, just change of partners.

But the really odd two things are these;1) What leatherman says: who is going to have the cash to pay for this method of cutting the risk for a commitment to thrill riding?? 2) The study is quite honest about the problem of the window period and isn't that EXACTLY the problem that nullifies how well this prevention method is going to work in the longerm, for the studied subjects, to continue avoiding HIV, by screening their random, annonymous partners, no doubt on the same hustle. Is there or isn't there going to be constant supply of "window cases", making the rounds, infecting a few in that 1 month, until some evening, the daily testing says the gig was up.... 4 weeks ago. Ooops.

But again, I see good uses for this. And hey, as a luxury product, I do agree that it should be on the market, that people with the cash should have a right to access this science.

Also for the subject pool "envisioned" in that rather skanky research, I don't think every gay guy is a dope, and plenty will EASILY understand the little glitch about the window period.

Of and for the research subjects scene: maybe there could be a cell phone app, grindr plugin, that could access the chain of contacts and spit out a six degrees chart of distance or closeness to recent infections of men within the social network, and compute the "window period" risk.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 08:51:41 PM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Also for the subject pool "envisioned" in that rather skanky research, I don't think every gay guy is a dope, and plenty will EASILY understand the little glitch about the window period.

I give you the depth and breadth of the internet's dating sites/apps and the search term "DDF" to rebut that assertion.

Also, AM I INFECTED, the Mos Eisley of AIDSMEDS.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Yeah we are in very muddy terrain. But I always got the impression that a LOT of DDF characters are performing it with a wink, just to get laid, and not completely deluded that they are reliably "DDF" considering their sex choices. It seems to me 33% delusional, 33% dumb/ignorant, and 33% just playing sleazy semantics getting the sex they want.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Yeah we are in very muddy terrain. But I always got the impression that a LOT of DDF characters are performing it with a wink, just to get laid, and not completely deluded that they are reliably "DDF" considering their sex choices. It seems to me 33% delusional, 33% dumb/ignorant, and 33% just playing sleazy semantics getting the sex they want.

That's a subset of the population on which I would dearly love to read a study. I could never conduct one myself, what with the ethical problems with bitch-slapping them all.

With a wink, of course.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Although this home test kit is an option, I'm just wondering, most folks are afraid to buy condoms, are we to really believe they will be so comfortable purchasing an HIV test in public? Someone they know might catch them buying it... Oh my! LMFAO. Most people (poz or neg) that I know, complain about having to dole out a couple bucks for condoms. Instead, they go to clinics to get them for free, or wait for some kind of sexual health awareness workshop, or wherever. Or, they just go without them & pray nothing happens. Honestly, I think the home test will turn out to be a waste of precious dollars that could be used elsewhere. I imagine seeing expired tests on the shelves before we know it. IMO.

And really, who will be able to afford doling out $40, $50, $60 a pop?

Idk, only time will tell.

Logged

"People grow through experience if they meet life honestly and courageously. This is how character is buit." Eleanor Roosevelt

Although this home test kit is an option, I'm just wondering, most folks are afraid to buy condoms, are we to really believe they will be so comfortable purchasing an HIV test in public? Someone they know might catch them buying it... Oh my! LMFAO.

Good point.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

And really, who will be able to afford doling out $40, $50, $60 a pop?

although I totally agree with you concerning the issues about the costs associated with user-purchases of these tests, your hypothetical costs seem to be very exaggerated - especially when your lowest value is over double of what this report stated.

Quote

In July, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first such test, the OraQuick In-Home Rapid HIV test, which, according to the manufacturer OraSure, is expected to be available over the counter this October at “slightly more” than $17.50.

I would also hope that enterprising ASOs and testing locations would be able to bulk-purchase the kits to freely distribute or to sell at a reduced price.

a positive test needs to be confirmed. something many people seem to misunderstand. with an at home rapid positive result, i can see alot of overreactions. don't get me wrong, i think its a great thing. but the idiots over on "am i" are a powder keg with this kind of fuel.

so many posts about how this won't work for SOME folks. "too expensive", "too embarassed", "too anxiety ridden", on and on......... So are we saying because some subset of folks won't, can't, shouldn't use this, then no one should have the option?

I mean, I know the "Am I..." forum is full of drama and I applaud those that take their time, energy, knowlegde and (above all) patience to work with them - quite frankly I find it heroic. But public health policy should not be driven by that forum.

As someone who is in a long term Neg/poz Relatiionship I am all for this. We know the drill and know that we have to go through it every 4 to 6 months and it will make our lie easier to be able to wait 20 minutes in our living room than the waiting room of a clinic. We know our risk and use protection. For those of you that have a shame about buying condoms check out amazon

although I totally agree with you concerning the issues about the costs associated with user-purchases of these tests, your hypothetical costs seem to be very exaggerated - especially when your lowest value is over double of what this report stated.

I would also hope that enterprising ASOs and testing locations would be able to bulk-purchase the kits to freely distribute or to sell at a reduced price.

"Orasure plans to launch the test in October, selling it through retailers like Walgreens, CVS and Walmart, as well as online pharmacies. Whereas the test marketed to health professionals costs about $17.50, Orasure expects the consumer version to sell for more. The company is not announcing a price yet, but said it would be less than $60. CEO Doug Michels said the additional cost will help pay for a toll-free call center to provide counseling and medical referrals to test users."

so many posts about how this won't work for SOME folks. "too expensive", "too embarassed", "too anxiety ridden", on and on......... So are we saying because some subset of folks won't, can't, shouldn't use this, then no one should have the option?

I mean, I know the "Am I..." forum is full of drama and I applaud those that take their time, energy, knowlegde and (above all) patience to work with them - quite frankly I find it heroic. But public health policy should not be driven by that forum.

Mike

I agree that the more options we have for testing, the better. This is a very good development.

That doesn't mean there aren't some problems. Here is another significant one :

"Because the F.D.A. approved the home test only for people 17 and older, retail stores may ask customers to show ID, he said. The restriction is not for medical reasons, but because only a few subjects age 14 to 16 were tested, he said, “so that was the deal we worked out with the F.D.A.”

That seems quite stupid to restrict it this way. Is there any evidence the test does not work in 14 to 16 years old ?

It is known that many teenagers 14-16 engage in unprotected sex. There wouldn't be any teenage pregnancies if they didn't. So they are also at risk for HIV.